[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate, Luck and Chance [Language as a form]



Am sad about the uncalled for attention. We can still debate robustly and
at the same time remain civil.

Patrick.

On 27 November 2014 at 08:48, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Carol Et al
>
> It is a short holiday week in the US and I am on the road visiting family
> and friends. I have only limited access and am trying to think about what
> it means to have participants with such varied histories with the discourse
> community and its topic and such varied backgrounds. Uncharted territory.
>
> For those who care to see XMCA continue, I suggest that you read and
> reflect on the 30+ history of this discourse community. The summaries that
> I know of can be found at
> LCHC.ucsd.edu under history archives. There are two summaries there that
> go
> back to roughly 1983.
>
> Further comment without people stopping to familiarize themselves with
> prior history and without having participants ceasing to seek  solutions to
> the current confusions in the iniatives taken by others rather than in
> collective action in which they share responsibility seems unlikely to bear
> fruit that can nourish a productive future.
>
> All sorts of alternatives are possible.
>
> One alternative is not possible, and that is to eschew personal
> responsibility and lay it on the shoulders of a 76 year old "retired
> professor" whose inadequate understanding of the core issues of the role of
> culture in the development have been thoroughly documented by numerous real
> experts over decades.
>
> The record is there, open to all.
> Check it out. Then we can assess the future.
>
> Good luck to us all
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carolmacdon@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > There have been some off list postings about this phenomenon. None of it
> > complimentary.  This cannot be sorted out in one move.
> >
> > I propose that we move onto a different thread -  topic.
> >
> > Mike, would you like to start us off on something new?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > On 27 November 2014 at 02:49, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andy, if you're going to retire, then retire. But don't aim one or two
> > > more underhand blows behind the feint of retiring.
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well this bloke will retire again at this point. I thought for a
> brief
> > > moment there, I thought we had a breakthrough. Certainly, Huw's "real
> > > illusion" is perfectly apt to my mind (it's an expression Marx uses),
> or
> > > in  Eric Fromm's words, an illusion with "survival value." Martin says
> > > "Consciousness is an objective process that *sometimes* can *give rise
> > to*
> > > illusions." As Vygotsky says "For him psychology is partly
> > phenomenology."
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Robinson wrote:
> > > >> Henry,
> > > >>
> > > >> Your wife's question leads to another: who speaks for the silent
> > > majority, many of whom, like me, must be getting fed up with what
> David K
> > > calls a "rather blokish struggle for power over particular words'? [Not
> > > Richard Nixon :)]
> > > >>
> > > >> Bruce R
> > > >>
> > > >> PS: You may also note that I have not changed the subject heading of
> > > this message so that it bears no relation to the content. Something
> else
> > I
> > > find irritating...
> > > >>
> > > >> On 26/11/2014 17:16, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> > > >>> Sister Analisa,
> > > >>> Thank you for responding! I was just talking to my wife (getting
> > > personal!) about the chat. She asked me, "How does anyone get to
> > > participate in the (XMCA) chat if only a few people take part?" I
> > wondered
> > > in my email below if too much was expected of written communication in
> > the
> > > XMCA chat. With 800 people potentially taking turns, well...what is
> even
> > > possible logistically? Mike Cole has talked about this, and, I think,
> has
> > > some suggestions on how to deal with the bottlenecking. But even small
> > > scale communication can be daunting. I watched, with my wife, a Richard
> > > Linklater movie last night, "Before Midnight". Two people, face to
> face,
> > in
> > > a totally committed relationship, smart people, good people, trying so
> > hard
> > > to get it right. Always a work in progress. But it's worth it. The
> > > alternative is despair. I am sure of this: This chat, which seems to
> get
> > > bogged down in abstractions, pure thinking in the mud, is really
> > > consequential beyond the sensitivities of academics. I said we
> > > >> va
> > > >>>  lue Vygotsky's "heroism", but that's too macho. I should have said
> > > courage.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is a powerful idea, often
> called
> > > the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis. Google it. Really. See what you think. One
> > > gauge of the power of an idea is if it has found its way into popular
> > > discourse. I just this morning heard an NPR radio program (thanks again
> > to
> > > my wife, who was listening when she heard something she thought I would
> > be
> > > interested in) that dealt with the Whorf/Sapir hypothesis in its strong
> > and
> > > weak form.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Henry
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Dear Henry,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thank you for your reply.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't think being personal (or even personable) requires being
> > > heated. Does this have to do with my comment of warmth as a sign of
> > welcome?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> To speak about culture non-personally is not something I am adept
> at
> > > doing. We are always speaking from where we stand, the culture that we
> > are
> > > in or from, what-have-you.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Respectfully, I do not know what "linguistic relativity
> hypothesis"
> > > is. So please be patient with me while I connect this academic idea you
> > > have offered to this conversation so that I can relate that to my
> > personal
> > > experience speaking on this thread, though clearly I'm not speaking
> > > literally right now, but it is speech from me, not a sock puppet with
> my
> > > voice thrown from the position of objective reality.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You are talking about speaking two languages. But it seems we are
> > all
> > > speaking English on this list. So I'm a bit lost right there what you
> are
> > > trying to say to me.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Then, you speak of metalinguistics and how it represents different
> > > worldviews, if you don't mind me swapping your use of "perspective" for
> > > worldview. There is a lot of time clearing muckups to get it right. I'm
> > not
> > > sure that it ever gets right though, which troubles me. I have found
> that
> > > many people who have different worldviews communicate by "talking to,"
> > > rather than "talking at." I feel, for example, you and I are talking to
> > one
> > > another, despite our likely different POVs.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't know what the "perish and dapple of Andy" means when you
> say
> > > that. From what I can tell he's trying to define something for himself
> > > asking for the help of others. That's fine and I'm learning that
> > > definitions are very bas-relief for him. I think my interests are a
> > little
> > > different. So I'd prefer to orient to my interests, if that is OK.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Speaking of metalinguistics, rather than debate over definitions,
> > I'm
> > > more interested in speaking to the very different people who are on
> this
> > > list. The rumor is there are 800 folks out there. Where are you? :) To
> > > reference a highly academic quote from the Wizard of Oz:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "Come out, come out wherever you are, and meet the young lady who
> > > fell from the star!"
> > > >>>> --Glinda, the Good Witch from the North (waves magic wand)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm curious how others have been inspired by Vygotsky and
> > > sociocultural theory, and even other manifestations of his ideas, such
> as
> > > CHAT, etc and how people are using these approaches in their work. What
> > is
> > > that like for you? And to be more specific, what is that like for women
> > and
> > > people of color? I'm also interested in thinking-out-loud with others
> > about
> > > Vygotskian concepts that are not easy to understand; to employ in real
> > time
> > > dialogue and social interaction to leap over zopeds together. Isn't
> that
> > > what a listserv is for? Or am I being too idealistic?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I have tried to speak in an open, easy, and immediate manner, to
> > > allow others to engage. But I fear that engagement is never going to
> > happen
> > > because all that persists are conversations about definitions, or
> whether
> > > nothing can come from nothing, and voila! subsequent debates ensue. Or
> > > someone will say, "We already discussed this 20 years ago!" Which
> means I
> > > missed the party, I suppose. Unfortunately, if I disagree with a
> position
> > > because I interpret differently, then I'm told to go read something
> > without
> > > really a clear explanation why I'm supposed to go read something.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't really agree with the approach of "read this," as an
> > academic
> > > argument. Anyone is free to use it, and I have myself, but because I
> know
> > > how obtuse that can be, I couch it with my reasons why I think it would
> > be
> > > a good read for that person, and what I think there is learn from
> > reading.
> > > I think the "read this" approach, when it is offered with the tone of
> > "now
> > > go eat your vegetables!" fails in the making of speech between people.
> > All
> > > it does is shut things down.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If the reading truly is relevant, it seems far more productive in
> > the
> > > moment of speech to cue a person what to look for, to supply a context,
> > > especially when referencing an entire book, for example, or the link to
> > an
> > > entire website full of texts.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Your assessment in the physicality of language is something with
> > > which I am completely in agreement. Especially since we all seem to
> agree
> > > with the material aspects of language. So the question at hand is a
> > matter
> > > of form. Form has an aesthetic but also has a purpose. Are we throwing
> > > ropes or throwing boulders? If throwing boulders, where does that need
> to
> > > throw boulders come from? If throwing ropes, then at least connections
> > are
> > > being made for those who might not be very clear about ideas and who
> may
> > > require a helping hand.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Then there's the old, but handy, elliptical comment, something
> like
> > a
> > > boomerang... meant to be subtle or ironic at the expense of someone who
> > may
> > > not understand.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> At this point, I'd to emphasize that being ignorant is not being
> > > stupid, but it seems someone who is ignorant is frequently treated as
> > > stupid (um, on this list). This "phenomenon" has made me reflect upon
> how
> > > little time is spent upon the nature of ignorance in education and the
> > > dynamics of ignorance in speaking. Every one of us is ignorant about
> most
> > > things in the world. And yet being ignorant is seen as an
> embarrassment,
> > a
> > > deficiency, a lapse in character. I vehemently disagree with this
> > reception
> > > to ignorance. Even Einstein said something like, "The more I know, the
> > more
> > > I see how much I don't know." Such an aggressive position toward
> > ignorance
> > > is nothing but hurtful, even arrogant. Arrogance is a blister, a
> defense
> > > mechanism from previous hurt. A person who is honest about one's own
> > > ignorance is a very strong person and is showing a willingness to learn
> > > something. I think all teachers will agree that a person who knows one
> > > doesn't know is an easier student to teach tha
> > > >> n
> > > >>>   one who doesn't know one doesn't know.
> > > >>>> Iconicity is something I can hang my hat on. I see it is related
> to
> > > pointing. What I like about pointing is that it is a gesture, which
> > implies
> > > movement, in the way the word is also movement. I hope I have made
> > > sufficient personal connections to your concepts without the heat.
> Thank
> > > you for offering them to me.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Kind regards,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Annalisa
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
> > Developmental psycholinguist
> > Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
> > Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
> >
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>



-- 
*Patrick Jaki*







*P. O Box 505 WitsJohannesburg2050South Africa*